Thrasher v. Saul
7:16-cv-00311
E.D.N.C.Aug 8, 2017Background
- Angela Thrasher applied for Disability Insurance Benefits and SSI, alleging disability from September 9, 2010; after administrative denial and remand she had a second hearing and the ALJ (McFadden‑Elmore) again found her not disabled.
- ALJ found severe impairments: degenerative disc disease, fibromyalgia, post‑fusion scoliosis, carpal tunnel syndrome, mood disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder; RFC: sedentary work with additional restrictions (cane use, no ladders/ropes/scaffolds, never kneel/crawl, occasional ramps/stairs/stoop/crouch, frequent handling/fingering, avoid concentrated hazards, unskilled work, no ongoing public interaction).
- ALJ concluded Thrasher could not perform past relevant work but could perform representative jobs (document preparer, final assembler); Appeals Council denied review and claimant sued.
- Primary contested issues on review: whether the ALJ properly weighed medical opinion evidence (notably treating pain specialist Dr. Pecoraro and consultative examiner Dr. Caughey) and whether the ALJ properly evaluated Thrasher’s symptom testimony/credibility.
- The magistrate judge concluded the ALJ’s weighing of opinions and credibility findings were supported by substantial evidence (objective findings, treatment notes showing improvement/stability, inconsistency in opinions, and more recent providers’ assessments), and recommended denial of Thrasher’s motion and affirmance of the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight accorded treating physician (Dr. Pecoraro) | Dr. Pecoraro’s treating‑source opinion that Thrasher could not work and had severe time/weight limits should be controlling | ALJ properly gave little weight because the opinion relied on subjective reports and contradicted objective findings and other records | ALJ did not err; substantial evidence supported giving little weight to Dr. Pecoraro due to inconsistent objective findings and contrary treatment notes |
| Weight accorded consultative examiner (Dr. Caughey) | Dr. Caughey’s consultative opinion that claimant couldn’t work and had moderate functional limits should carry more weight | ALJ reasonably gave little weight: one‑time exam, lacked specifics (time/weight), inconsistent with later records showing improvement | No error; later and more comprehensive treatment records limited the probative value of the 2011 consultative exam |
| Credibility of symptom testimony (pain, functional limits) | ALJ mischaracterized testimony and failed to fully credit limitations in sitting, walking, lifting | ALJ permissibly discounted some subjective statements based on objective evidence, activities, conservative treatment, and inconsistencies | ALJ’s credibility evaluation complied with governing standards and is supported by substantial evidence; RFC incorporated credited limitations |
| RFC assessment and step‑5 nondisability finding | RFC omitted limitations plaintiff asserts (e.g., sitting/walking/lifting) and thus step‑5 finding is unsupported | RFC reflects proper weighing of evidence; there remain jobs in significant numbers claimant can perform | Court upheld RFC and step‑5 conclusion that claimant is not disabled under the Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (administrative-record substantial‑evidence review standard)
- Shively v. Heckler, 739 F.2d 987 (standard for substantial evidence review)
- Laws v. Celebrezze, 368 F.2d 640 (definition of substantial evidence)
- Smith v. Chater, 99 F.3d 635 (affirming Commissioner when supported by substantial evidence)
- Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650 (factors for evaluating medical opinions)
- Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171 (ALJ may give less weight to treating source when contrary evidence exists)
- Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585 (two‑step pain/symptom evaluation and role of objective evidence)
- Scivally v. Sullivan, 966 F.2d 1070 (ALJ must not invent specious inconsistencies)
- Gross v. Heckler, 785 F.2d 1163 (subjective evidence cannot override lack of objective support)
- Mickles v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 918 (claimant’s subjective statements alone insufficient to establish disability)
- Pass v. Chater, 65 F.3d 1200 (burden shifts to Commissioner at step five)